- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: AP: memo authorizes ICE to enter homes by force without a judicial warrant
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:01 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Emotional-based rhetoric. Nonsense.
Lots of people here are willing (at least for now) to give up constitutional rights for emotional reasons. I guess if the next Dem president declares gun violence a national emergency and has ATF going door to door doing checks, "Republicans shouldn't have flooded the country with guns" is on the menu?
ETA lionward beat me by a minute
This post was edited on 1/22/26 at 11:02 am
3
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
When fear stops being an emotion, then I'll be wrong. As of this post, it's still an emotion, so I'm not wrong.
Ah, so you're just being intellectually dishonest.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:05 am to lionward2014
quote:
neutral federal judge
Just curious when we're going to start appointing those in Minnesota
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:05 am to BBONDS25
quote:
judge duck
That bitter old frick is dead now I believe. Reese is gone now too right after the 5th Circuit ripped her to shreds.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:06 am to Ingeniero
quote:
officers to use force to enter a residence based solely on a more narrow administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal,
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:06 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Lots of people here are willing (at least for now) to give up constitutional rights for emotional reasons.
That's the entire point of that shitty fear-based framing.
We saw the same thing in the thread discussing the SAVE Act and states rights last night. "Oh yeah we don't support states rights b/c we need a federal leviathan to stop my perceived out-group"
It's very basic propaganda that any intelligent person thinking non-emotionally should be able to spot out quite easily.
This post was edited on 1/22/26 at 11:07 am
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:08 am to Azkiger
quote:
Ah, so you're just being intellectually dishonest.
Naw.
When you debase your argument by referencing the fear of the out-group, you're engaging in fear-based arguments. When fear stops being an emotion, those arguments will stop being emotional.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:08 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Lots of people here are willing (at least for now) to give up constitutional rights for emotional reasons.
Nah, we just understand that refusing to play a game based on principle still means we lose the game.
It's not emotional, its completely logical.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:09 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Just curious when we're going to start appointing those in Minnesota
The weaponization of the judiciary is probably the second worst thing to happen to the Constitutional order of the country behind only the expansion of executive power at the acquiescence of the legislative.
That's irrelevant to the topic at issue here however.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:10 am to Azkiger
quote:
Nah, we just understand that refusing to play a game based on principle still means we lose the game.
Pictured here: fear-based nonsense
quote:
It's not emotional,
This is only true when fear stops being an emotion
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
When you debase your argument by referencing the fear of the out-group
When did I do that?
Also, this guy claims he's not a progressive.
Me "I dont want open borders"
SFP "Youre just scared of (insert demographic here)."
This is why conservatives (your opposition) doesn't take you seriously.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:12 am to SlowFlowPro
Still logical.
Refuse to play a game and you'll still be handed a loss.
Refuse to play a game and you'll still be handed a loss.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:12 am to Azkiger
quote:
Also, this guy claims he's not a progressive.
Me "I dont want open borders"
SFP "Youre just scared of (insert demographic here)."
When did I do that?
Oh lord, did you fail at understanding what "out-group" means?
You should just back away, at this point.
quote:
This is why conservatives (your opposition) doesn't take you seriously.
You don't seem to be capable of discerning political allegiance or the concepts being discussed in this thread.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:15 am to Azkiger
quote:
Nah, we just understand that refusing to play a game based on principle still means we lose the game.
It's not emotional, its completely logical.
Then why stop at immigration? Liberal DAs are letting people go with a slap on the wrist. Why not skip warrants and jury trials and just put them in prison unilaterally? Do you love criminals?
Why not arrest people protesting ICE in Minnesota? Not just the ones obstructing, but the ones standing by and blowing whistles and holding signs? Wouldn't it be easier if we didn't have these instigators?
Where do we draw the line?
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:16 am to lionward2014
quote:
That's irrelevant to the topic at issue here however.
No it isn't.
To the extent this is troubling , it would only be acceptable to citizens because they see no legal way out because our institutions have completely crumbled in legitimacy. They don't value constitutional rights when they don't see that our institutions value the constitution.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:17 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Lots of people here are willing (at least for now) to give up constitutional rights for emotional reasons.
This going end in an ICE agent bursting in an American citizen home and getting shot…
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
When did I do that?
Literally the previous post.
quote:
Oh lord, did you fail at understanding what "out-group" means?
Explain it to me using the current context (borders and immigration).
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:17 am to Ingeniero
Remember last week when a lawyer defending his criminal client was proof that the lawyer was engaged in a criminal conspiracy? 
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:20 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Then why stop at immigration? Liberal DAs are letting people go with a slap on the wrist. Why not skip warrants and jury trials and just put them in prison unilaterally? Do you love criminals?
Different game.
We're talking about illegal immigrants, not US citizens.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:21 am to Azkiger
quote:
Literally the previous post.
Showing you don't read good, again.
quote:
Explain it to me using the current context (borders and immigration).
You shifting the framing to a different discussion doesn't change the actual context.
The "out-group", in the actual discussion, is leftists/Democrats. (Your actual words, "Sucks to be put in this position by democrats.")
I LITERALLY described the argument in detail in the post prior.
Nobody is talking about being scared of black of brown people, as he posted. Wrong group/discussion entirely.
Again, read more good.
This post was edited on 1/22/26 at 11:22 am
Page 12 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News